Introduce a Rights of Nature Act
Green · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Green’s policy “Introduce a Rights of Nature Act” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Cost of living — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
Phasing out glyphosate is likely to raise food costs for consumers in the short-to-medium term, as farmers face higher operating costs with fewer effective alternatives. Longer-term soil health benefits could partially offset this, but the near-term cost-of-living effect is negative.
The evidence
- The policy would immediately phase out glyphosate and introduce rigorous tests for all pesticides. — greenparty.org.uk (manifesto) — “immediately phase out harmful pesticides like glyphosate, and introduce rigorous tests for all pesticides”
- A glyphosate ban could reduce UK farm output by around £940 million to £1 billion annually, including a potential 20% drop in wheat production. — fwi.co.uk (media) — “a glyphosate ban could reduce UK farm output by about £940 million to £1 billion annually, with a potential 20% drop in wheat production and a 3.8% overall output reduction”
- Increased farming costs from a glyphosate ban are likely to lead to higher food prices for consumers and greater reliance on food imports. — fwi.co.uk (media) — “These increased costs are likely to lead to higher food prices for consumers and greater reliance on food imports, potentially from countries still using glyphosate”
- 76% of farmers use glyphosate for pre-harvest desiccation; its removal would raise costs for 67% and lead to higher crop losses for 66%. — fwi.co.uk (media) — “Farmers, 76% of whom use glyphosate for pre-harvest desiccation, warn that its loss would raise costs for 67% of them and lead to higher crop losses for 66%”
- Alternatives to glyphosate are often more costly and less effective than systemic glyphosate for large-scale arable systems. — japaneseknotweedagency.co.uk (media) — “many alternatives are contact killers, requiring repeated applications, and are often more costly and less effective than systemic glyphosate for large-scale arable systems”
- Soil quality standards could reduce costs for farmers over time by reducing the need for artificial nutrient inputs. — farmingadviceservice.org.uk (media) — “Implementing soil health measures could reduce costs for farmers over time by lessening the need for artificial nutrient additions”
- Farmers could face initial additional costs of £15 to £209 per hectare for cultivated land from changes in soil practices. — crew.ac.uk (academic) — “farmers might face initial additional costs of £15 to £209 per hectare for cultivated land due to increased fuel usage if certain practices change”
Biggest unknown: Whether effective, affordable alternatives to glyphosate can scale fast enough to prevent significant food-price rises, and how much cost farmers pass through to consumers.
Our reading: The policy has four components, but the dominant cost-of-living signal comes from the immediate glyphosate phase-out. Glyphosate is embedded in UK arable farming — used by 76% of farmers for pre-harvest desiccation — and alternatives are both costlier and less effective at scale. The projected consequence is a significant reduction in farm output (up to £1 billion annually, with wheat output potentially falling 20%), and increased operating costs that are likely to be passed through to consumers as higher food prices. Food is a core component of the cost-of-living basket, and lower-income households spend a higher share of income on food, so this effect is regressive. The soil quality standards component has a plausible long-run upside — healthier soils may reduce farmers' input costs over time — but this is a slower, structural effect that would not offset near-term food price rises. Stricter pesticide testing could also raise costs and reduce pesticide availability, though the direct consumer price effect is harder to quantify from the evidence. The legal personhood provisions are too removed from household costs to materially affect O2. On balance, the near-term effect is a worsening of food affordability, driven by the glyphosate phase-out, with the magnitude depending heavily on how quickly and cheaply alternatives can be adopted. The evidence for higher food costs is from an industry-commissioned study (advocacy-adjacent) but is consistent with the agronomic evidence on alternatives, so the direction is supported even if the precise figures are uncertain.
Clean environment & nature — Helps
moderate · moderate confidence
This policy targets biodiversity, soil health, and pesticide harm through several instruments — most of which point toward genuine environmental improvement. The main risk is that a glyphosate ban could push farmers toward heavier ploughing, which would increase carbon emissions and erode some of the gains.
The evidence
- The policy would grant nature legal personhood, set soil quality standards, immediately phase out glyphosate and other harmful pesticides, and require rigorous testing for all pesticides. — greenparty.org.uk (manifesto) — “Pass a new Rights of Nature Act to grant nature legal personhood, set soil quality standards, immediately phase out harmful pesticides like glyphosate, and introduce rigorous tests for all pesticides.”
- Only 14% of rivers and lakes in England currently achieve 'good ecological status', indicating serious baseline degradation of aquatic ecosystems. — earthlawcenter.org (media) — “only 14% of rivers and lakes in England achieving 'good ecological status' in 2024 due to pollution, drought, and flooding.”
- Glyphosate use in UK farming rose 1,000% between 1990 and 2024, spreading across 2.6 million hectares, and is associated with harm to amphibians, bees, and pollinators, and water contamination. — cieh.org (media) — “Glyphosate use in UK farming rose 1,000% from 200 metric tonnes in 1990 to over 2,200 tonnes in 2024, spreading over 2.6 million hectares, despite weed resistance.”
- UK post-Brexit pesticide standards have diverged from the EU, with MRLs increased for over 100 food items, including for pesticides linked to reproductive toxins, carcinogens, and endocrine disruptors. — pjrfsi.uk (media) — “These changes include pesticides linked to reproductive toxins, carcinogens, and endocrine disruptors.”
- Intensive agriculture has caused arable soils to lose 40–60% of their organic carbon content, threatening carbon storage and soil ecosystem function. — farmingadviceservice.org.uk (media) — “Intensive agriculture has caused arable soils to lose 40-60% of their organic carbon content.”
- UK soils hold around 9.8 billion tonnes of carbon but at only about half their potential, partly due to degradation. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “UK soils currently holding about 9.8 billion tonnes of carbon, only about half of their potential.”
- Soil quality standards could improve drainage, nutrient availability, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and air and water quality. — farmingadviceservice.org.uk (media) — “Standards could lead to better nutrient availability, enhanced resilience to extreme weather (droughts, floods), sustainable crop production, and improved environmental regulation (air and water quality, carbon sequestra…”
- Current pesticide testing regimes overlook sub-lethal impacts, cocktail effects, and real-world field conditions, so more rigorous tests could prevent ongoing wildlife harm. — policy.friendsoftheearth.uk (media) — “current tests primarily focus on immediate, lethal effects, overlook long-term or sub-lethal impacts (e.g., on animal behaviour), are not reflective of real-world field conditions, are tested on a narrow range of species…”
- A glyphosate phase-out risks pushing farmers toward more intensive tillage, increasing fuel use and carbon emissions, and reducing beneficial cover-cropping practices. — theandersonscentre.co.uk (media) — “Farmers might revert to more intensive cultivation (ploughing), increasing fuel use and carbon emissions, and reducing beneficial practices like cover cropping.”
- Implementing legal personhood for nature faces a fundamental UK governmental objection, with Defra stating that rights cannot be applied to nature, raising delivery risk for that element. — earthlawcenter.org (media) — “the UK's "firm position is that rights can only be held by legal entities with a legal personality," and that "rights cannot be applied to nature or Mother Earth," suggesting a fundamental disagreement on the legal feasi…”
- International precedents for Rights of Nature show enforcement can be weak even where constitutionally recognised, as in Ecuador. — lawyersfornature.com (media) — “successful implementation globally has sometimes been inconsistent, as seen in Ecuador, where enforcement can be weak despite constitutional recognition.”
Biggest unknown: Whether glyphosate's phase-out triggers a large-scale reversion to intensive tillage, which would release soil carbon and partly cancel the environmental benefits of removing the pesticide.
Our reading: The policy bundles four distinct environmental instruments. Taken together they point toward improvement on O6, but with varying degrees of certainty and one meaningful downside risk. Soil quality standards address a documented and severe baseline problem — with soils holding only half their potential carbon and having lost 40–60% of organic content under intensive agriculture. Mandatory standards with enforceable targets would constitute a real mechanism for reversing this, improving carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and water quality. The OEP's noted absence of a national soil baseline is a delivery challenge but not a fundamental objection to the direction of effect. Rigorous pesticide testing responds to an evidenced gap: current UK tests miss sub-lethal and cocktail effects, and post-Brexit MRL divergence has weakened protections relative to the EU. Stricter tests would reduce the flow of novel harmful chemicals into ecosystems — a genuine incremental gain for biodiversity and water quality. Glyphosate phase-out has the strongest environmental upside case (harm to pollinators, amphibians, and waterways from a product whose use has risen 1,000% since 1990), but also a meaningful downside: evidence shows farmers may revert to intensive ploughing, releasing soil carbon and offsetting some of the environmental gain. The net effect on O6 from this element alone is genuinely mixed. The Rights of Nature Act / legal personhood element faces a hard political and legal obstacle — Defra's stated position is categorical — and international experience shows enforcement is often weak even where the legal recognition succeeds. This element is unlikely to deliver near-term measurable environmental gains within a parliament. Absent this policy: the baseline trajectory is continued soil degradation, rising pesticide loads, and weakened post-Brexit standards. The policy's mechanisms — if implemented — would materially improve on that counterfactual, especially via soil standards and pesticide testing. The glyphosate transition risk is real but partial. Overall direction is improves at moderate magnitude, felt mainly over the long term as soil and ecosystem recovery is slow. Confidence is moderate given delivery uncertainty and the ploughing-reversion risk.